Laser strike forces Virgin Atlantic flight to turn back to London

"You're risking lives of hundreds of people," police tell laser-wielding idiots.

Read the whole story

 

[CraigJ ✅]

adamrussell[/url]":12de734p]

CraigJ[/url]":12de734p]

Comparing DUI to this doesn't make sense anyway. More like firing a gun into the air.

The problem is that long sentences aren't deterrents. The idiot shining the laser probably isn't checking the municipal penal code for penalties before doing this. Not that there shouldn't be stiff penalties - there should be. They just aren't going to be a deterrent.

This is there the DUI comparison makes sense: If penalties were a major deterrent, we wouldn't have over a million DUI arrests and 10,000 dead people from drunk driving every year.

Actually, the rate of drunk driving deaths has gone down since the 70's when we started taking it seriously.

Yes, it has. Now, is that due to fear of penalties, or generally increased awareness?

 

[aki009]

Lasers and eyes don't mix. No question about that.

But what I don't get is how a laser was able to shine into the eyes of a pilot after takeoff. When the nose is pointed up, there's very little terrain visible from where the pilots sit.

Somehow there seems to be a bit more to the story than is being told here.

 

[SirBedwyr]

Just going to suggest that all the musing about technical solutions on either the laser-transmitter side or the protecting-the-airplane side isn't very realistic and such solutions are not remotely likely to happen.

Laser transmitters aren't going anywhere unless you execute a major embargo or reclassify these devices as weapons. Attaching strange directional capabilities is likewise unlikely. Too broad a market, too international a market, too simple a device, too easily hackable.

On the airplane side there may be some special coating that could block enough wavelength to mitigate the problem, but I don't know what wavelengths most astronomy and hobby lasers use. Most likely it's a silly idea that will never come to pass. And whether it is some kind of coating or tracking system, this becomes what people in aviation call "yet-another-box" that will require burdensome safety and regulatory work on top of the (very) difficult technical research. Considering how difficult it is, at least in the US, to get airlines to merely equip ADS-B transceivers, a far far more simple radio system, please. Not going to happen.

By all means keep proposing technical solutions. There might be a genius idea I haven't seen yet. But from what I see so far, all of them are pretty silly. Legal and policing solutions are much more likely. Shoot, even then I don't see enough cost from these incidents to any party to invoke some legal solution that's truly novel. I'm going to predict that nothing much happens until one of these things causes a for-real accident and the rubric of the FAA (and ICAO) being tombstone agencies holds true again.


edit: cleaning some grammar.

 

[TheMerricat]

uhuznaa[/url]":3bn7zi3g]

TheMerricat[/url]":3bn7zi3g]
On the other hand for commercial airlines, I could easily see retrofitting cockpit windshields with film that filters the most common wavelengths used by lasers.

Yeah, a nice black coating would do the trick, but has its disadvantages... Seriously, what is left after filtering out red, green and blue light? If you have a "film" that really filters the most common wavelengths in very narrow bands only though... sell it to them!

Lasers don't cover the whole 'red, green, blue' spectrum. Like LED they have specific wavelengths they can produce. Filter out those, bonus points if you use a polarized filter and thus avoid filtering out 'natural' sources of light along the same wavelength, and you still get your reds, greens, and blues.

 

[SirBedwyr]

aki009[/url]":1ctq0p3b]Lasers and eyes don't mix. No question about that.

But what I don't get is how a laser was able to shine into the eyes of a pilot after takeoff. When the nose is pointed up, there's very little terrain visible from where the pilots sit.

Somehow there seems to be a bit more to the story than is being told here.

Not pointed that far up and windows point sideways too.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

SirBedwyr[/url]":3rbt81e9]

aki009[/url]":3rbt81e9]Lasers and eyes don't mix. No question about that.

But what I don't get is how a laser was able to shine into the eyes of a pilot after takeoff. When the nose is pointed up, there's very little terrain visible from where the pilots sit.

Somehow there seems to be a bit more to the story than is being told here.

Not pointed that far up and windows point sideways too.

And aircraft have been known to bank.

 

[blargh]

syslog2000[/url]":hn8dkrr2]How hard would it be to add an orientation sensor to a laser pointer? If the device is pointing above a certain angle the beam is disabled.

This would be very cheap to do and could be regulated to be a part of any laser pointing device with sufficient power to drive its beam more than 50 feet.

1. This sensor would eliminate a great many legitimate indoor uses of these laser pointers.

2. It's not clear what basis you have for claiming this to be "very cheap", other than wishful thinking.

3. Anything engineered can be reverse-engineered and bypassed, especially if it's done simply and cheaply.

4. The root cause of this issue is that we can't manage to effectively regulate the manufacture (especially in China) or import of these devices. The technological cat is out of the bag. Attempting to pile on even more regulation is unlikely to make much of a difference.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

blargh[/url]":1l9du22x]

syslog2000[/url]":1l9du22x]How hard would it be to add an orientation sensor to a laser pointer? If the device is pointing above a certain angle the beam is disabled.

This would be very cheap to do and could be regulated to be a part of any laser pointing device with sufficient power to drive its beam more than 50 feet.

1. This sensor would eliminate a great many legitimate indoor uses of these laser pointers.

2. It's not clear what basis you have for claiming this to be "very cheap", other than wishful thinking.

3. Anything engineered can be reverse-engineered and bypassed, especially if it's done simply and cheaply.

4. The root cause of this issue is that we can't manage to effectively regulate the manufacture (especially in China) or import of these devices. The technological cat is out of the bag. Attempting to pile on even more regulation is unlikely to make much of a difference.

Also, can be bypassed with a mirror.

 

[commentaway]

Instead of lining the cockpit windows, wouldn't it be more cost effective to just give all the cockpit crew a wraparound glass to be used during takeoff and landings?

 

[operagost]

AxMi-24[/url]":2kgt1f89]

LostAlone[/url]":2kgt1f89]

h4rm0ny[/url]":2kgt1f89]Would it be possible when manufacturing lasers to introduce some distinctive signature to each? If some variation in wavelength or a very fast repeating pattern could be introduced, then it might be relatively easy to record that by cheap sensors. Whilst altering them by a technically adept and persistent person might be possible, it would be an easy measure against casual abuse.

This may sound a bit crazy but really we use more sophisticated technology in a TV remote control every day. Laser communications are a common-place every day technology. A plane or other common target being able to say: "the signature of the laser was X" would be a very valuable tool in stopping this.

That's not a great solution honestly. Firstly, it doesn't solve the problem of lasers that are already out there. Secondly, there's no way you can police the whole world which is relevant because a lot of these lasers are made in China. Thirdly, it doesn't actually reduce the likelihood of an plane crashing, just makes it easier to catch the person who did it. Fifthly, being able to tie a laser signature to a single laser isn't the same as proving who was using it.

The result is just... Not great.

A better solution would be something that is independent of the laser such as a filter that can be fitted over cockpit windows.

Best solution is to simply stop selling powerful lasers. How many private citizens actually need a laser that is more than 5mW? Call the rest weapons and slap the usual laws on them.

It's not about whether people need such a laser, but whether the government has the right to determine what I "need".

The fact is that there are MILLIONS of small lasers out there, and an incredibly small percentage of idiots who haven't gotten the memo that pointing one at any kind of vehicle is, well, idiotic.

 

[ChickenHawk]

adamrussell[/url]":xmnd4e9y]

ChickenHawk[/url]":xmnd4e9y]

adamrussell[/url]":xmnd4e9y]10000 people die a year from drunk drivers in the US alone.
0 people die a year from laser strikes.

I totally agree that its a stupid thing to do. So is drunk driving. Are you willing to deal with the problem in a proportionate manner? Whats the penalty for 1st offense drunk driving? IIRC its suspension of license and hefty fine. Not 15 years in prison.

It's a completely different situation. We can legally remove from you the privlidge of driving. How do we remove someone's right to own a laser pointer, and how do you enforce it?

What about probation and repeat offense sends you to prison? Just off the top of my head; legal beagles can probably list a dozen other ways the courts often deal with 1st offenses without ruining their lives for good.

Is there an actual example of a laser pointer user with an otherwise clean record not getting a suspended sentence (ie - no jail time) or is this grandstanding?

 

[ChickenHawk]

commentaway[/url]":3fy1uizt]Instead of lining the cockpit windows, wouldn't it be more cost effective to just give all the cockpit crew a wraparound glass to be used during takeoff and landings?

Which will only be effective for a small number of wavelengths, the more you cover the more you impair the pilots vision.

 

[SirBedwyr]

ChickenHawk[/url]":1y8ftv96]

commentaway[/url]":1y8ftv96]Instead of lining the cockpit windows, wouldn't it be more cost effective to just give all the cockpit crew a wraparound glass to be used during takeoff and landings?

Which will only be effective for a small number of wavelengths, the more you cover the more you impair the pilots vision.

And goes back to the "install complex device on *all* transport planes with marginal safety return" point I made earlier.

 

[Lord Nikon]

As a regular on airliners.net, I ran across a blog entry from a B737 pilot about laser strikes he had experienced the cockpit in a thread about this same incident.

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/09/2 ... mythology/

I neither agree or disagree with his statement, just merely sharing experience from another pilot who has experienced a laser strike first hand.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

ChickenHawk[/url]":2wqzpfmx]

commentaway[/url]":2wqzpfmx]Instead of lining the cockpit windows, wouldn't it be more cost effective to just give all the cockpit crew a wraparound glass to be used during takeoff and landings?

Which will only be effective for a small number of wavelengths, the more you cover the more you impair the pilots vision.

Maybe the pilots should just leave the blast shield down and use the Force.

 

[SirBedwyr]

Lord Nikon[/url]":289wct57]As a regular on airliners.net, I ran across a blog entry from a B737 pilot about laser strikes he had experienced the cockpit in a thread about this same incident.

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/09/2 ... mythology/

I neither agree or disagree with his statement, just merely sharing experience from another pilot who has experienced a laser strike first hand.

A very good alternative perspective. I hardly hold with his opinion as he's extrapolating one experience and saying "concern ain't worth it". But it's a good counter-experience to toss in with all the others.

 

[leslie_wright]

It has to be said that I am appalled at the scaremongering about laser pointers!
I have worked with industrial lasers for many years and I am surprised that illuminating a cockpit is an imprison-able offence.
Foolish and stupid, but not imprison-able. I think a caution would be more appropriate for attempting to "distract" a pilot in a flight path.

Here is why:

Laser beams spread out over distance, not as much the beam of a torch, it is subtle but it is there. This divergence is measured in the industry in milliradians.

Lets take a high quality lab laser as an example, it is a 250mW DPSS laser at 532nm (Bright green), and has a divergence of 1.5 mrad (very well collimated). The laser itself is capable of igniting a cigarette at close range, all this power is packed onto a spot size of just 1mm.

After travelling for just 100m though, the beam has spread out to a diameter of 151mm, this gives us a beam area of : 17,907.86 mm2

The available power per square mm therefore becomes: 0.01396035 mW/mm2. 14 Microwatts per square millimetre!

Given a pupil diameter of 4mm (12.57mm2), assuming the beam hit the eye head on, 1.75mW of light would enter the eye.

The Sun at zenith irradiated the surface of the earth with approximately 1050w/m2, that is 1.05mW per square mm. Given a pupil diameter of 4mm (12.57mm2) looking directly at the sun, 12.05mW of light enters the eye.

This means, you would need a 20 Watt laser, to shine 100 meters into somebodies eye to outshine the mid-day sun!

Glancing at the sun is therefore more dangerous than this 250mW laser at 100m!

I do not recall the last news article where somebody was injured by a glimpse of the sun.

At the very most, in the scenario here, a flash of laser light might be as distracting as the sun reflecting off of water or windows, but certainly not injurious to health.

 

[ChickenHawk]

leslie_wright[/url]":1ez02q0k]It has to be said that I am appalled at the scaremongering about laser pointers!
I have worked with industrial lasers for many years and I am surprised that illuminating a cockpit is an imprison-able offence.
Foolish and stupid, but not imprison-able. I think a caution would be more appropriate for attempting to "distract" a pilot in a flight path.

Here is why:

Laser beams spread out over distance, not as much the beam of a torch, it is subtle but it is there. This divergence is measured in the industry in milliradians.

Lets take a high quality lab laser as an example, it is a 250mW DPSS laser at 532nm (Bright green), and has a divergence of 1.5 mrad (very well collimated). The laser itself is capable of igniting a cigarette at close range, all this power is packed onto a spot size of just 1mm.

After travelling for just 100m though, the beam has spread out to a diameter of 151mm, this gives us a beam area of : 17,907.86 mm2

The available power per square mm therefore becomes: 0.01396035 mW/mm2. 14 Microwatts per square millimetre!

Given a pupil diameter of 4mm (12.57mm2), assuming the beam hit the eye head on, 1.75mW of light would enter the eye.

The Sun at zenith irradiated the surface of the earth with approximately 1050w/m2, that is 1.05mW per square mm. Given a pupil diameter of 4mm (12.57mm2) looking directly at the sun, 12.05mW of light enters the eye.

This means, you would need a 20 Watt laser, to shine 100 meters into somebodies eye to outshine the mid-day sun!

Glancing at the sun is therefore more dangerous than this 250mW laser at 100m!

I do not recall the last news article where somebody was injured by a glimpse of the sun.

At the very most, in the scenario here, a flash of laser light might be as distracting as the sun reflecting off of water or windows, but certainly not injurious to health.

Because as a pilot on approach, being dazzled and distracted is no big deal... Except it is.

Having worked with them on the ground does not imply knowledge of the practical effect in the air.

 

[davethepak]

SplatMan_DK[/url]":2xofexq5]

h4rm0ny[/url]":2xofexq5]

GreyAreaUk[/url]":2xofexq5]In terms of punishment, in the event that they catch whoever did this then I'd say community service + a fine that's a percentage of the fuel bill that their actions caused would be appropriate.

If you're basing it on costs (and I agree you should), you need to add things like cost of overnight accommodation for all of these people (which the airline is currently footing the bill for) and any losses occurred by the passengers due to the delays. In some cases you wont be able to put a financial figure on that (example, missing a sibling's wedding) but some figure should be arrived at to represent it, anyway. Any arrived at figure for something like a plane actually having to turn around, is going to be pretty high.

For those advocating charging people with 500+ counts of attempted murder, etc.. that's not productive. If a year of your life taken away from, locked in a box and any relationships you have in all probability destroyed isn't a deterrent to someone from waving a laser pointer at a plane, then natural life sentences aren't going to be a deterrent either, because the person doing it already has no ability to assess risk-benefit. And if deterrence isn't the aim, then destroying a life isn't going to undo any harm. Fines, like GreyAreaUK (isn't all of the UK a grey area?) suggests, is the way to go.

As I have stated above, I think people who do these things should be punished, but adding up costs and demanding them from the moron who did this isn't exactly productive either.

What will happen if you do that, is simply this: The 19 year old thoughtless geezer who hit a plane with a laser pen will be hit by a horde of lawyers from the airline, and a demand of several hundred thousand dollars - effectively ruining his life and chances of ever becoming self sufficient (unless he happens to be a very rich kid already).

Punishments like these hurt society, because they produce criminals instead of the opposite.

You need to strike a careful balance where the punishment is severe enough for the kid to feel "punished" but without taking away his chances of actually becoming a normal productive member of society in the future.

Slamming him with the legal department from AA and a demand for a quarter of a million is not going to turn the kid in to a productive citizen. It is going to marginalize him, ruin him for life, destroy his chances of ever building a family, and most likely ensure 100% that he will never get an education because he can't afford to attend it.

The only "winner" is the corporation who runs the prison he will end up frequenting for the rest of his life.

I think a full year of community service would produce better results, be cheaper for all involved, and actually leave the kid with a decent chance in life at the other side.

Throwing people in jail for years on end for stuff like this, or demanding sums of money that are larger than the price of a family house, gives poor results. And you, the taxpayer, end up paying. Every. Time.

Penalties for a crime are not just to punish the offender - they are to act as a deterrent to future offenders.

If there is a strong deterrent, there the "Every.Time" will be less times.

If you only got a $10 fine for robbing a bank, we would have quite a bit more bank robberies....

 

[NelaK]

Let's see: 250 people, the person wasted probably 4 hours of their time or so... 1000 hours community service + the pilot's medical expenses + compensation in case of permanent vision damage since that could be a career ender for them.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Colm[/url]":1899nd4z]

charlie don't surf[/url]":1899nd4z]WUT?? He couldn't land in NYC, so he flew all the way back across the Atlantic to land in the UK? That makes no sense.

It reminds me of an old Marx Brothers routine, The Great Aviators.

Now I tell you how we fly to America. The first time, we get halfway across when we run out of gasoline. We got to go back.
Then I take twice as much gasoline. This time, we were just about to land, maybe feet, when, what do you think, we run out of gasoline again. Back we go and get more gas.
This time, I take plenty gas. We get halfway over, when what do you think happened? We forgot the airplane.
So we sit down and talk it over. Then I get the great idea. We no take gasoline. We no take the airplane. We take steamship. And that, friends, is how we fly across the ocean.

https://youtu.be/38N5OcZx3ko?t=56s

The flight was over Ireland/in Irish airspace when it turned around.

I think the reference to having to turn round because they were out of fuel should be a giveaway that the post is humorous. Though I've noticed Arsians do seem to mod humour down with a fury. You all remind me of the Judge from Who Frame Roger Rabbit. "STOP LAUGHING!"

 

[h4rm0ny]

CraigJ[/url]":2f8353y6]

vlam[/url]":2f8353y6]

geo257[/url]":2f8353y6]

GreyAreaUk[/url]":2f8353y6]

Richardprice[/url]":2f8353y6]

GreyAreaUk[/url]":2f8353y6]In terms of punishment, in the event that they catch whoever did this then I'd say community service + a fine that's a percentage of the fuel bill that their actions caused would be appropriate.

What about the risk of death and serious injury to everyone on board? Thats negligent manslaughter if the plane had crashed...

True, but I'm thinking in terms of what actually happened, not what might have.

If somebody drives drunk and gets caught, should they only suffer minor consequences because they didn't kill anybody? They get off easy and might consider doing it again except the next time, they do kill someone. Does someone have to die before we take action?

If someone gets caught driving drunk, they get a DUI and penalties associated with it. If they kill someone while driving drunk, they get charged with some version of manslaughter.

So, yes. You absolutely get a lesser charge for drink driving if nothing bad happens.

Comparing DUI to this doesn't make sense anyway. More like firing a gun into the air.

The problem is that long sentences aren't deterrents. The idiot shining the laser probably isn't checking the municipal penal code for penalties before doing this. Not that there shouldn't be stiff penalties - there should be. They just aren't going to be a deterrent.

This is there the DUI comparison makes sense: If penalties were a major deterrent, we wouldn't have over a million DUI arrests and 10,000 dead people from drunk driving every year..

Penalties are a significant deterrent. There's a large difference between having a six month jail penalty and none at all. There's just very little difference between having a six month jail penalty and a five year jail penalty. The debate isn't, imo, whether penalties are a deterrent. They are to most rational people. It's whether there's any gain in having silly big penalties. And the answer, imo, is that they aren't, because you've already weeded out the rational people with the smaller penalties.

 

[RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRachael]

All lasers have warnings on them. The operator clearly failed to obey/read this. Jail time would be acceptable as this can be terrorism (a blinded pilot is as good as no pilot).
And damn, it's hard to keep a red dot on a target 50yds out, so these idiots are knowingly, actively stupid and causing harm.
Will pilots need to wear head gear like fighter pilots? HUD?

 

[Dmytry]

It is kind of ridiculous that the buck or boost converter within the laser pointer (on the account of it possibly causing electromagnetic interference) is regulated far more stringently than the laser pointer itself.

FCC actually has rules about spread of electromagnetic waves - for example if you just attach a parabolic antenna to your wifi, even though that does not increase the power, that can violate FCC rules by making the beam more directional. Plenty of useful products with low risk of screwing up anything vital are prevented by such rules.

I say lasers should be regulated in the same way as other EM emitters with potential for interference with communications (between lights on the ground and pilot's eyes) and even damage of receiving equipment (pilot's eyes). Basically, it would be legal to sell a high powered laser diode, and it would be legal to sell a lens, but it wouldn't be legal to sell the whole assembly (keeping the idiots from impulse-buying high powered laser pointers and keeping the number of said laser pointers low).

This needs to be done because as technology advances there will be cheap lasers with the power of tens and eventually even hundreds watts (used in projectors, car headlights, one day even lightbulbs, due to higher max theoretical efficiency than a LED).

It is also completely ridiculous to have rules concerning specifically this issue (not otherwise harmful EM emitter coupled to a highly directional antenna) and only apply them to useful harmless products like wifi antennas, but not to perhaps the only instance of this kind of thing actually causing problems.

 

[GhostRed]

It's interesting to read all the arguments about "medical issues" and "piloting" when planes are almost entirely automated these days.

That doesn't justify what these laser wielding idiots are doing, or solve the problems it does cause, however.

My suggestion would simply be to put a filter on the glass or maybe inside the cockpit. Any light that can reach that distance is using one of a few predictable wavelengths which can easily be blocked using a simple lens filter. It would even work if pilots wore sunglasses designed to filter the appropriate wavelengths, at least during takeoff and landing.

Given, there's probably the one-off color out there, but I'd bet most of these are red or green, which can easily be filtered.

 

[NortonII]

How about making those caught pay for the fuel wasted, time lost, costs incurred etc.

That one return (which would have required dumping fuel to land safely) probably cost a few hundred thousand in fuel alone, much less airport taxes/fees, salaries, etc. plus a inconvenience premium payed to each passenger..

Basically, if you are dumb enough to do this, we will dock all your pay for the next 10 years so that you can't afford another laser to do it again.

 

[Embattle]

I'm interested in what proper uses these devices, basically is there a reason Joe blogs really needs one?

 

[alastairmayer]

mrseb[/url]":3j9wyssg]

LostAlone[/url]":3j9wyssg]

Poulan[/url]":3j9wyssg]Whilst I think that the people shining lasers at aeroplanes are morons, if a mere laser can bring down an multimillion dollar aeroplane with hundreds of civilians on board and the only failsafe in place is relying on morons not to be morons, then that is really not sufficient a failsafe and the industry needs to find a real redundancy. There has never been a plane taken down in the history of aviation in this way. I also cannot see how a pilot who is aiming the plane upwards at take off could be so debilitated by something coming from at least 45 degrees angle from miles away that they would roll the aircraft to such a degree that it crashed.

By the time the laser gets to the cockpit it covers the whole canopy sending random, bright, flickers of light across the whole cabin which screws with the pilots eyes as the keep trying to adjust to the flashes and not the outside world. Imagine walking into a dark room from a brightly lit one over and over while trying to fly a plane. It stops your eyes being able to focus and adjust and at worst to know what lights are on or off. When those lights are landing lights, say, or cockpit indicators, that's a problem.

Yes, I agree that really the only answer will be in developing a countermeasure for the planes but don't underestimate the potential dangers involved. That there hasn't been a crash doesn't make it not a problem.

FWIW, I think the pilot had a "medical issue" - but he was still able to pilot the plane. I don't think he was blinded or anything like that. Probably more of a precautionary thing, as the pilots didn't know what would happen - maybe his eyesight would fail later in the flight or something.

Was he still able to pilot the plane? Or was that the co-pilot? Modern aircraft are capable of being flown and landed by one crewmember -- or indeed zero crewmembers, since Heathrow has an excellent zero-zero autoland system (landed there myself once in fog so thick you could barely see the wingtip), but you don't want to continue a transatlantic flight with half of your redundant equipment (in this case, a pilot) in questionable shape. It could just have been that he had a lot of really crazy after-images floating around in his field of view -- but you don't know if that'll clear up or if some of them are permanent.

 

[georgeh2k]

Why don't they put cameras on commercial planes to try to catch these guys? Cameras now are very lightweight and very cheap. But airlines are so cost sensitive that they would probably never do this on their own. Instead, governments need to mandate that commercial airlines install cameras to try to catch the perpetrators of laser strikes and to have evidence to convict them in court.

The current defense, pleading with the jerks who get off on aiming their laser pointers at aircraft to stop, will never work.

 

[Arkle]

This problem doesn't seem to be going away.

Enough about some special film that will block all laser strikes already.

What about: using the forward facing windows only as a backup - instead, use high performing multi-spectrum cameras and sensors.
1)This way laser strikes can simply be (electronically) filtered out
2) If, per chance, a laser strike does make it through the electronic filtering, it would be simple observed as a red or green light, not something that can damage the retina.
3) Better visualization through fog, rain, etc. - the pilot can make adjustments to optimize the ability to see the important stuff (other plane, the odd aberrant drone, the ground, etc.).

 

[alastairmayer]

leslie_wright[/url]":1s7s3vb3]
I do not recall the last news article where somebody was injured by a glimpse of the sun.

How about 36 people killed? (And 3000 accidents.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

Or 195 people killed? http://www.sunposition.com/GlaringDanger.html

Nationwide, glare is the official cause of only a fraction of fatal crashes across the country - 195 in 56,793 - according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

... and that's from a 1998 article.

And that's auto accidents. Pilots can't just put on the brakes and slow down if they're dazzled.

Just because you've assumed a spherical cow for your calculations doesn't mean people don't get trampled by bulls.

 

[Skullsnstuff]

Yes. The problem is that it's a very, very dark colour, not unlike the goggles welders wear. You need to reflect almost all radiation (0.0001% of a 100W red laser is stil an unhealthy amount of radiation) for all of the populair colours of laser. Infrared, red, orange, green, blue, violet and near UV.

It interferes quite bit with being able to see anything except in full sunlight.

I've seen welding masks that you can see through when not welding, but they darken almost instantly when you start welding. I wonder if something like that could be used, given that a laser presumably is striking only a small area of the cockpit glass at a time. A few dark steaks on the glass that then turn transparent again is better than eye injury, if it's do-able.

And I agree there need to be cameras on the control tower, planes, or something to try to pinpoint the locations of these idiots for law enforcement.

 

[alastairmayer]

georgeh2k[/url]":1v4o1a2l]Why don't they put cameras on commercial planes to try to catch these guys? Cameras now are very lightweight and very cheap. But airlines are so cost sensitive that they would probably never do this on their own. Instead, governments need to mandate that commercial airlines install cameras to try to catch the perpetrators of laser strikes and to have evidence to convict them in court.

The current defense, pleading with the jerks who get off on aiming their laser pointers at aircraft to stop, will never work.

I don't disagree with you about cameras, but as soon as you put the word "aircraft" or "aviation" in as a modifier, the price goes up an order of magnitude or three. (Lower manufacturing volume, certification costs, etc.) Some airlines/aircraft do in fact have externally mounted cameras (I've seen shots from the tail looking forwards) for other purposes, so this may indeed become a thing.

 

[whquaint]

Sales of lasers above a certain power need to be highly restricted. More than they are now. Each sale needs to be registered with some authority. Export/import/trade need to be heavily regulated.

As the saying goes, we can't have anything nice.

 

[Natt]

CraigJ[/url]":3oldd26e]

adamrussell[/url]":3oldd26e]

CraigJ[/url]":3oldd26e]

Comparing DUI to this doesn't make sense anyway. More like firing a gun into the air.

The problem is that long sentences aren't deterrents. The idiot shining the laser probably isn't checking the municipal penal code for penalties before doing this. Not that there shouldn't be stiff penalties - there should be. They just aren't going to be a deterrent.

This is there the DUI comparison makes sense: If penalties were a major deterrent, we wouldn't have over a million DUI arrests and 10,000 dead people from drunk driving every year.

Actually, the rate of drunk driving deaths has gone down since the 70's when we started taking it seriously.

Actually, the rate of all driving deaths has gone down since the '70s, when we started taking automotive safety seriously. That's despite the annual vehicle miles traveled having grown by billions annually over the same time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ._by_year#

 

[bjf182]

One way mirrored cockpit windows?

 

[leslie_wright]

ChickenHawk[/url]":1u7ijnw1]

leslie_wright[/url]":1u7ijnw1]It has to be said that I am appalled at the scaremongering about laser pointers!
I have worked with industrial lasers for many years and I am surprised that illuminating a cockpit is an imprison-able offence.
Foolish and stupid, but not imprison-able. I think a caution would be more appropriate for attempting to "distract" a pilot in a flight path.

Here is why:

Laser beams spread out over distance, not as much the beam of a torch, it is subtle but it is there. This divergence is measured in the industry in milliradians.

Lets take a high quality lab laser as an example, it is a 250mW DPSS laser at 532nm (Bright green), and has a divergence of 1.5 mrad (very well collimated). The laser itself is capable of igniting a cigarette at close range, all this power is packed onto a spot size of just 1mm.

After travelling for just 100m though, the beam has spread out to a diameter of 151mm, this gives us a beam area of : 17,907.86 mm2

The available power per square mm therefore becomes: 0.01396035 mW/mm2. 14 Microwatts per square millimetre!

Given a pupil diameter of 4mm (12.57mm2), assuming the beam hit the eye head on, 1.75mW of light would enter the eye.

The Sun at zenith irradiated the surface of the earth with approximately 1050w/m2, that is 1.05mW per square mm. Given a pupil diameter of 4mm (12.57mm2) looking directly at the sun, 12.05mW of light enters the eye.

This means, you would need a 20 Watt laser, to shine 100 meters into somebodies eye to outshine the mid-day sun!

Glancing at the sun is therefore more dangerous than this 250mW laser at 100m!

I do not recall the last news article where somebody was injured by a glimpse of the sun.

At the very most, in the scenario here, a flash of laser light might be as distracting as the sun reflecting off of water or windows, but certainly not injurious to health.

Because as a pilot on approach, being dazzled and distracted is no big deal... Except it is.

Having worked with them on the ground does not imply knowledge of the practical effect in the air.

Ok, from an expert with knowledge of practical effect in the air:

"Took a laser in the side of my face last night as I was hand-flying a Boeing 737-800 with 170 people on board through about 500 feet on approach. My reaction?

Shrug. No big deal."

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/09/2 ... mythology/

 

[smoothofhand]

rosen380[/url]":1hi5hvbj]"3 - Your 'burning down my house' analogy is ridiculous since it involves actual property damage, something that did not happen."

So, maybe not burning down you house but perhaps shooting off fireworks towards your house. Maybe the fireworks are unlikely to set your house on fire, but with the right set of conditions? Sure.

I think the fireworks analogy is very apt. But are you suggesting that a person carelessly firing off fireworks should get something more than a fine and possibly community service in the event that no actual property damage takes place?

 

[ARaybould]

mrseb[/url]":1jbxvfrz]

LostAlone[/url]":1jbxvfrz]

Poulan[/url]":1jbxvfrz]Whilst I think that the people shining lasers at aeroplanes are morons, if a mere laser can bring down an multimillion dollar aeroplane with hundreds of civilians on board and the only failsafe in place is relying on morons not to be morons, then that is really not sufficient a failsafe and the industry needs to find a real redundancy. There has never been a plane taken down in the history of aviation in this way. I also cannot see how a pilot who is aiming the plane upwards at take off could be so debilitated by something coming from at least 45 degrees angle from miles away that they would roll the aircraft to such a degree that it crashed.

By the time the laser gets to the cockpit it covers the whole canopy sending random, bright, flickers of light across the whole cabin which screws with the pilots eyes as the keep trying to adjust to the flashes and not the outside world. Imagine walking into a dark room from a brightly lit one over and over while trying to fly a plane. It stops your eyes being able to focus and adjust and at worst to know what lights are on or off. When those lights are landing lights, say, or cockpit indicators, that's a problem.

Yes, I agree that really the only answer will be in developing a countermeasure for the planes but don't underestimate the potential dangers involved. That there hasn't been a crash doesn't make it not a problem.

FWIW, I think the pilot had a "medical issue" - but he was still able to pilot the plane. I don't think he was blinded or anything like that. Probably more of a precautionary thing, as the pilots didn't know what would happen - maybe his eyesight would fail later in the flight or something.

The ability of the crew to fly the airplane is not the only consideration. The affected crew members are entirely justified in seeking an eye examination and treatment as soon as possible.

 

[Natt]

smoothofhand[/url]":1ce9rcso]

rosen380[/url]":1ce9rcso]"3 - Your 'burning down my house' analogy is ridiculous since it involves actual property damage, something that did not happen."

So, maybe not burning down you house but perhaps shooting off fireworks towards your house. Maybe the fireworks are unlikely to set your house on fire, but with the right set of conditions? Sure.

I think the fireworks analogy is very apt. But are you suggesting that a person carelessly firing off fireworks should get something more than a fine and possibly community service in the event that no actual property damage takes place?

If they are deliberately targeting my house with fireworks? As is the case with a laser pointer pointed at an aircraft?

The analogy doesn't work. The danger present with fireworks is fairly self evident even to fairly stupid people.

It is far less evident to the average person that a handheld laser pointer, pointed at an aircraft, is even going to be visible to the pilot, let alone momentarily blinding or dazzling at the distances involved.